Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday April 16, 2012 @03:06AM
from the we're-going-to-need-more-cookies dept.

An anonymous reader writes "To attract media and Congressional attention to the deep NASA planetary exploration cuts proposed to take place October 1, and the need to restore the planetary budget to present or higher levels, a National Planetary Exploration Car Wash and Bake Sale is being planned for June 9th. Organizations already involved include planetary groups at many universities, research institutions, and Moon Express (Google Lunar X Prize)."

The only place those trilliions should go is back to the hard working people they were taken from. If individuals want a space program, then they can get out their check books and voluntarily pay for one.

Boy, your just showing your ignorance there. NASA routinely runs less than a penny per federal dollar.It makes no sense to try to balance the budget with cuts to NASA.From Wikipedia:NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represents about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during the year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States.

You can say just about the same thing about all other government services. You want medical care, school systems, highway infrastructure, social security?? Then why don't you get out your own checkbook and pay for it yourself, and give me back the taxes I paid for the services you use.

How about stopping the stupid cannabis war? Not only do you need about 33% of the current police force (I kid you not), but also there will be massive hippy protest to stop costly wars, saving even more.

Problem? I'm sure some cannabis smokers who get high before bedtime will totally bring evil to the world! (not)

You can say just about the same thing about all other government services. You want medical care, school systems, highway infrastructure, social security?? Then why don't you get out your own checkbook and pay for it yourself, and give me back the taxes I paid for the services you use.

I like the way you're thinking. The sooner people decide where to spend their own money the better. The enlightened way to look after the needy is via compassion, and compassion cannot be forced - it is a voluntary action.

Compassion is a ridiculously easy system to game to your advantage. Worse than that, once it gets settled, only those who game the system can get anything out of it.

Look at both history and the way begging goes in the poorer parts of the modern world. You can find professional beggars who put more effort into looking desperate than they do into finding work, even to the extent of crippling themselves, removing limbs, tearing off skin to fake skin diseases, and so on.

There are also huge biases built in. Women get more charity than men. It's easier to find charity money for starving kids than it is to prevent them from starving in the first place. Cancer victims are fashionable, tuberculosis victims are ignored.

I simply do not believe it is possible for pure charity to be fair.

I don't know much about the US welfare system, so it might well be a complete disaster, but in general the state welfare model can be made blind to all this bias, and in most of the developed world, that's exactly the point of it.

I don't know much about the US welfare system, so it might well be a complete disaster, but in general the state welfare model can be made blind to all this bias, and in most of the developed world, that's exactly the point of it.

It's also completely lacking in compassion, pushes out private charity, and is subject to allocation by politics. I can't see how that's better, especially when you consider the administrative overhead involved in collecting and distributing, which is always higher in large bureaucracies.

What does this mean? That once an organized effort is providing all the starving people with food, private individuals no longer throw money at a lucky few?

That "organized" (read: more expensive) effort ends up entirely dismantling the ability of other organizations to feed, clothe, and house the needy. Instead of many different charities focused on various social issues, you have a single entity allocating money based on political expediency. Then a revenue crisis occurs, budget cuts put some portion of the population on the street and starving, and there is no longer an alternative.

It sounds like complaining that the professional firemen push out citizen fire brigades.

It means that when a private person sees another person or group collecting for some issue, the private person is more likely to ignore them and not contribute. This person will usually justify the decision because his taxes are paying for [insert gov't program here]. This is a real issue that economists and charities have spoken about for many decades.

These charities do not lack organization as you suggest. These charities may in fact be far more effective than Washington DC. Many of these charities are

So just like in the software world the government can institute programs to help 90% of people.

90% or more of people don't need help. One of the "biases" (using the phrase mentioned earlier in this thread) that frequently gets lost as we go from private charity to public, is that only the people who need help get help.

I don't know much about the US welfare system, so it might well be a complete disaster, but in general the state welfare model can be made blind to all this bias, and in most of the developed world, that's exactly the point of it.

State welfare is inherently biased towards those who cash the checks, such as people who commit fraud or those who mooch off of public goods such as welfare. No welfare is clearly less biased.

In order to effectively and reliably fund things, one needs regular sources of funding. And simply going to people and asking for a fraction of a cent is not an efficient or reliable way of getting money. Moreover, scientific research,like defense, is a public good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good [wikipedia.org] which means that everyone benefits whether they pay for it or not. Thus, people will have no incentive given the option not to pay for it since they will benefit either way. The only effective or fair way to pay for public goods is for everyone to pay.

In order to effectively and reliably fund things, one needs regular sources of funding. And simply going to people and asking for a fraction of a cent is not an efficient or reliable way of getting money.

Liberty trumps efficiency every time. Effectively enslaving people in the name of efficiency or a "public good" is not ethical. It's removing the veyr liberties the state is supposed to be protecting. It's self defeating to say that in order to protect us the state must first harm us.

Moreover, scientific research,like defense, is a public good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good [wikipedia.org] which means that everyone benefits whether they pay for it or not. Thus, people will have no incentive given the option not to pay for it since they will benefit either way. The only effective or fair way to pay for public goods is for everyone to pay.

By force, whether they can afford it or not? Is it fair that some are forced to pay for it disproportionately to someone else? When it comes to the state confiscating private property the end never justifies the means.

All government is a tradeoff. In your view are taxes for defense not ok then? Absolutes are really easy to state, but the universe is tricky and complicated. If one took your conclusion to its logical standpoint no form of government would be acceptable at all. That's not even libertarianism. That's anarchy.

If one took your conclusion to its logical standpoint no form of government would be acceptable at all. That's not even libertarianism. That's anarchy.

I don't advocate anarcy. Some form of government is necessary. The government exists to protect us from the initiation of force. If in doing that they end up harming us, then we have already lost. There are other ways of funding governments than enforced property confiscation. It's in our best interests for the system that protects us to be well funded. Funding would come from voluntary means such as donations, service fees and lotteries.

So there are a variety of problems with this. First, what do you mean by harm? Second, while it does depend what yardstick you measure success, I suspect that if one looks at history, you will consider a lot of things we have today to be signs of success that came due to government funding. For example, most of the funding for cancer research in the last seventy years has been from the government. For example, in 1950, childhood leukemia was death sentence. Now, most children with leukemia survive to adul

So there are a variety of problems with this. First, what do you mean by harm?

Harm is agression against someone's person or their property. An individual is soveriegn over their own mind, body and possessions.

Second, while it does depend what yardstick you measure success, I suspect that if one looks at history, you will consider a lot of things we have today to be signs of success that came due to government funding.

Sure - though it's not a logical conclusion that only compulsion based government funding could have achieved this result. Many technological advances have come from war. Does that mean that war is good? Desirable? Of course it doesn't.

For example, most of the funding for cancer research in the last seventy years has been from the government.... So, do you think fewer children dying of cancer is a decent way to measure success?

Again you are making the assumption that because these advances were funded by the state then it could *only* have been funded by the state. That

So, you raise some valid points. What evidence is there that the cancer research results would not have happened without largescale government funding? Well, we know how much funding there was before hand and so we can see that voluntary donations ended up being much less. The Jimmy Fund for example was one of the first major fundraisers for childhood cancer research. Despite that, they and other similar institutions raised comparatively little money in their first 20 years or so (when there was essentially

So, you raise some valid points. What evidence is there that the cancer research results would not have happened without largescale government funding? Well, we know how much funding there was before hand and so we can see that voluntary donations ended up being much less. The Jimmy Fund for example was one of the first major fundraisers for childhood cancer research. Despite that, they and other similar institutions raised comparatively little money in their first 20 years or so (when there was essentially zero federal funding for cancer research) compared to the amount supplied by the federal government once it became a national priority. This is discussed in some detail in "The Emperor of All Maladies" which is an excellent book about the history of cancer, So we do actually have some idea where funding levels compare.

Private donations in a socialist system is always going to be less than in a freer system because of the apathy that socialism breeds. People abdicate their personal and community responsibilities because a) they think the state is there to look after that stuff so they don't need to and b) because the state actively discourages charity by diluting the resources with which we can be charitable. You're looking at this from within the bounds of the current system - it's akin to begging the question.

Not only because it's not ethical to harm people in order to help them, but because the same ends can be achieved by means that don't see our freedoms trampled on.

I think community and bulk funding of various things is essential. I just don't think that funding should be enforced via agression. I think it should be through wholly voluntary means

In general, one should be suspicious when an ideological belief and reality correspond perfectly. In this case, there's an ideological belief (voluntary payments good, involuntary bad) and an assertion about reality (voluntary payments will be sufficient and work as well). The vast majority of the time, reality is pretty messy. It isn't going to correspond well to any simple ideology. In this particular context, I'm curious how you would respond to a hypothetical similar to the asteroid, but where you have detailed economic data and the like showing that you simply aren't going to raise enough funds through voluntary donations. Would you still be in favor of just using voluntary donations?

Private donations in a socialist system is always going to be less than in a freer system because of the apathy that socialism breeds.

That's not completely obvious but is a plausible claim. But it isn't very relevant to the bit that you are responding to. The issue in cases like the Jimmy Fund is not whether there would be more private donations with no government funding. The most relevant question is if the *total* amount of funding is more. In that context, the data is pretty clear. And the claim that this is a consequence of the current system simply isn't easily justified given that the same pattern holds in a large variety of diffe

Private donations in a socialist system is always going to be less than in a freer system because of the apathy that socialism breeds.

That's not completely obvious but is a plausible claim....[snip]... I can give similar examples such asthe transition from private to public fire departments in the United States in the 19th century.

That's a completely different type of society with different issues. No fair comparison can be made. If workers have their money forcibly taken off them so that a part of it can be given to people in need, then those workers are less likely to voluntarily hand their money for the same cause.

What you're really asking is whether I would be happy in confiscating peoples' private wealth using a threat of force. No, I would not be happy with that.

Happy is a distinct question from what one would do or thinks people would do. Presumably you wouldn't be happy being killed by a giant asteroid either, or watching children die slowly of cancer. The universe is cold and unforgiving. It doesn't care what makes us happy. So sometimes when we have different values, we need to decide which values we are going to emphasize. You say that solutions using "aggression" are unethical. But sometimes there's no really easy ethical solution, because reality just sucks.

There are ethical solutions, but they involve volunary action and compassion. What is needed is a system which encourages such compassion. In my opinion that means that first and foremost people must be free from aggress

That's a completely different type of society with different issues. No fair comparison can be made.

I can give many more similar examples in many different societies. At a certain point it is worth asking whether the claim is false for more societies than it is true.
Most of the rest of your comment is essentially repeating things you've already said. I do however want to draw attention to your last remark:

You have care of a young child who is starving. The child is so weak they can barely whimper about their hunger because they've had so little food. You have almost no food. You can steal food from a rich merchant with food. The rich person won't miss it but the child will die without it. Do you do so? If not, why not? If yes, how is this not an unethical use of aggression?

Yes, of course I would steal in that situation. But in this hypothetical we have moved squarely into anarchy. And yes, it is a form of agression. Ethics go out the window with anarchy. In a compassionate society this kind or anarchy would not be necessary. A system of governance cannot be compassionate when it is built on the threat of agression.

Famines and wealth inequality exist in many societies and often are a function of other features not the system of government. And that often occurs in contexts where one looking at the society would n

That's a completely different type of society with different issues. No fair comparison can be made.

I can give many more similar examples in many different societies. At a certain point it is worth asking whether the claim is false for more societies than it is true.

At the same point we should be asking whether it's possible for there to be a system which encourages compassion. Not having an evidence of such systems does not prove they are not possible. If that were the case then nothing new could be invented.

You have care of a young child who is starving. The child is so weak they can barely whimper about their hunger because they've had so little food. You have almost no food. You can steal food from a rich merchant with food. The rich person won't miss it but the child will die without it. Do you do so? If not, why not? If yes, how is this not an unethical use of aggression?

Yes, of course I would steal in that situation. But in this hypothetical we have moved squarely into anarchy. And yes, it is a form of agression. Ethics go out the window with anarchy. In a compassionate society this kind or anarchy would not be necessary. A system of governance cannot be compassionate when it is built on the threat of agression.

Famines and wealth inequality exist in many societies and often are a function of other features not the system of government. And that often occurs in contexts where one looking at the society would not generally call it a state of anarchy. The point is that you

I think it's a good idea to draw attention to the issue, but I dunno how much coverage it will get. I know the news where I live tends to focus on local politics and crime, the weather, sports, and current national stuff.

of course, they might just throw it in as a 'local event,' ignoring the fact that it's going on around the country.

But I'm down with this. As long as there is a way for individuals to support a particular government program they believe in, I would support it. In the case of NASA, I'd put my money/time/support where my mouth is.

Now imagine if these people instead went out and spent their time trying to raise the money they need from private benefactors, rather than this silly attempt at shaming the government into giving them more stolen money. It wouldn't matter how many people don't want to fund them; if they find enough money, even if it comes from just one benefactor, they could go forward with their research.

Or, they can keep begging the government to fund them out of money stolen from the public, in which case they constantl

Now imagine if the Department of Defense instead went out and spent their time trying to raise the money they need from private benefactors, rather than this silly attempt at shaming the government into giving them more stolen money. It wouldn't matter how many people don't want to fund them; if they find enough money, even if it comes from just one benefactor, they could go forward with buying guns and stuff.

"Libertarian" trolls get mod points and mod down perfectly sensible posts like the parent. I guess there must be PR flaks spending their time making sensible posts to get mod points to inflate (or mod down the opposition) the ratings of the guys in the same room posting their Koch-and-bull dysonomics. It must be like those gold-farming sheds in China; hang on, it probably is a gold farming shed in China.

Look, even the Republican Party has realised that the supporters of a Somalia solution for the USA are un

Now imagine if these people instead went out and spent their time trying to raise the money they need from private benefactors, rather than this silly attempt at shaming the government into giving them more stolen money.

Now imagine that they have been trying that tack, and they're still broke.

Going into space benefits us all. It has already paid dividends. It can pay more. It makes more sense than blowing the money on highways when we could be building rail, which can carry ten times as many passengers per dollar spent in the best case, and achieves parity in the worst case.

... It can pay more. It makes more sense than blowing the money on highways when we could be building rail, which can carry ten times as many passengers per dollar spent in the best case, and achieves parity in the worst case.

That hasn't been its record in the USA. Here it has been a sink of massive subsidies resulting in a vastly underused infrastructure that most people will avoid if they have a choice.

As I recall we ripped out all the passenger rail or sold it to the freight lines long, long ago. Outside of Amtrak (which has to give right-of-way to freight), and light rail, what infrastructure are you referring to?

As for subsidies, only in America do people think that rail should somehow magically "pay for itself"... the equivalent would be roads "paying for themselves", i.e., all toll roads, all the time. No one (outside of crazy libertarians) thinks that is a good idea. Basically, SOME sunk investme

That hasn't been its record in the USA. Here it has been a sink of massive subsidies resulting in a vastly underused infrastructure that most people will avoid if they have a choice.

That is massively false. That has only been true since the federal government not only permitted but actually actively aided the car companies in buying up and shutting down profitable and active public transportation systems to increase demand for automobiles, which coincided directly with the otherwise unnecessary introduction of the federal highway system, which was deliberately routed in order to destroy some cities and towns and to pursue other political goals. Therefore, the history of public transpor

We humans would like to think that we're special, but the fact is, we're just another species on this planet.

We are special.

And 99.99% of the species that have evolved on this planet have gone extinct on this planet.

And only one of those species, extinct or alive has built a civilization.

If we really want to be special, we need to leave Earth and spread out, because while the Earth's environment is the safest for us *individually* over the short term, it is also a near-guaranteed death sentence for our *species* over the long term.

So in half a billion years, someone needs to do something. Ok. If you going to claim that we should do something now in space, then you need to have a more compelling reason than something that happens long from now.

Well, it's risk management. If it happens odds are we more or less all die. So if we can do something about it then we should. You try not to worry about what you can't do anything about, but if you can do something and you don't that's lame. Meanwhile we get commercial benefits from it, without blowing anyone up but volunteers. I call it a win.

It'd have to a bit larger than the stuff that's hit us in the past 200 million years or so, for that to be a threat. And we can mitigate the risk of that without leaving Earth to the point that no asteroid collision since life began would be capable of killing all humans on Earth.

I think one should consider instead more mundane and frequent risks. For example, economic downturns are frequent, but they don't affect everyone with equal severity. A space-side economy could help humanity recover from Earth-

I focus on a rock because we have no plans which could, with short (say, two months') notice, do a goddamn thing to save us. Humans can, at least in theory, avert nuclear war. There's no real risk of cultural stagnation here on Earth unless we actually somehow all become the same. As long as we have differences (which is likely unless we tie ourselves together into a hive mind) we'll find shit to bicker about. But a rock can just show up out of the black and ruin your whole day.

Great, some people can crawl out onto a blasted landscape capable of supporting life in five years at best, if a major impactor lands in the ocean. But if the strike falls on land it could feasibly lead to our extinction even in the case of such preparations.

I think preventing a rockfall is possible but not without more shit in space to detect it in the first place.

And only one of those species, extinct or alive has built a civilization.

And if we get wiped out, what difference will all that have made? All the things we've learned and done will be for nothing, save perhaps a step up for the next dominant species.

So in half a billion years, someone needs to do something. Ok. If you going to claim that we should do something now in space, then you need to have a more compelling reason than something that happens long from now.

An asteroid could wipe us out tomorrow.

Evolution never stops. All it could take is one organism able to capitalize quickly and efficiently on the truly huge food supply that is Humanity, and it could all be over for us in a matter of months. That could happen tomorrow, too. Or yesterday, for that matter.

Now imagine that they have been trying that tack, and they're still broke.

They might be going broke, but private space development and exploration companies certainly aren't. NASA is failing because it's an enormous, lethargic bureaucracy staffed by the same caliber of people who work at the DMV or the welfare office, and people know this. I certainly wouldn't give money voluntarily to NASA.

Going into space benefits us all. It has already paid dividends. It can pay more.

I realize your "bake sale to buy a bomber" comment is a joke but the really funny thing is that stuff like that actually happened in WW2. Groups really did organize and collect money to buy an aircraft for the military.

I was a head baker of a popular country store in my area. Give me the right equipment and I can make four 8-inch and eight 4-inch pies in two hours or less. I will gladly show my support for this noble, righteous cause and offer my services.

Good Christ, if only the military had this problem... oh wait, they do, AFTER they send their beloved American soldiers home from wars that give them diseases, psychological issues and other stuff they ignore. This country is the greatest, as proven by this song [youtube.com].

Did you see the pic on that page? A bunch of middle age white guys washing your car? Ppphhhhhhh! Bring in some bikini-clad cheerleaders to do the washin' and I'm in! For smart guys, they're not thinking very smart.

The main three problems with the Planetary Society's campaign is simply a) That planetary science isn't that valuable to society, b) that basic economics issues, such as economies of scale and the additional risk of concentrating risk, are routinely ignored, and c) they aren't willing to put their own money where their mouth is (the "bake sale" is just a scheme to advocate for additional unaccountable public funding). I can't take them seriously until they figure these things out.